Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Charles GROGAN v. Daniel UGGLA, Et Al.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 2017No. M2014-01961-SC-R11-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHolly Kirby, J.

I write separately in this case because I concur with part of the majority’s analysis and disagree with other parts of it.

I concur in the majority’s recognition that Mr. Grogan states in his complaint a cause of action based on ordinary negligence, in the form of a claim that the defendant home inspectors negligently performed the inspection of the home purchased by Mr. Uggla. As noted by the majority, the defendant home inspectors have sought to portray Mr. Grogan’s cause of action as comprised of one claim, a claim of negligent misrepresentation, and the majority resisted the defendants’…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. NeustadtSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Bradshaw v. DanielTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Jethro Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., E.B.B. Co., Inc. And Lift Barge, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Company, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
  4. Doug Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Turner v. JordanTennessee Supreme Court · 1997

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API